History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC]

Some other sources on the Maurya History after Asoka:

Taranatha, a Tibetan historian (History of Buddhism, trans. Schiefner, pp.48 ff)
1. Kunala
2. Vigatasoka
3. Virasen


In addition to it, Kalhana , a Historian of Kashmir, in his Rajatarangini has reproduced from earlier accounts the story of Jalauka, a son of Asoka, who expelled mallechas from Kashmir and extended the boundaries of his empire by winning several battles.
 
The Maurya Dynasty *
1. Chandragupta Maurya
2. Bindusara Amitaraghata
3. Asoka-Vardhana
4. Dasaratha
5. Sangata
6. Silisuka
7. Somasarman Maurya
8. Satadhanwan Maurya
9. Brihadaratha
*V A Smith, The Early History of India, Oxford, Revised 4[SUP]th[/SUP] ed., pp 206-07
 
The Vayu Purana on Maurya Dynasty after Asoka

1. Kunala
2. Kusala
3. Bandhupalita
4. Indrapalita
5. Satadhanus
6. Brijadasva

Vishnu Purana on Maurya Dynasty after Asoka
1. Kunal
2. Dasarath
3. Suyasas
4. Salisuka (Vayu, Vishnu and Gargi Samhita part of the Yugapurana confirm this name]
5. Satadhanwan
6. Brihadratha

For further details regarding the issue of the thread in Puranic literature, see, Pargiter, Dynasties of the Kali Age.


Comments of the learned scholars are invited to make the above list more comprehensive. The above lists do not seem to be fully complete and could be improved on the basis of information contained in original Puranas which I have not been able to lay my hands due to certain inherent reasons.
 
Last edited:
The difficult problem of the date of accession of Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the ruling dynasty of Pataliputra, and the connected questions of the identity of the Maurya clan's origin with whom he was connected, have given occasion for voluminous discussion and wide divergence of opinion. In the following few posts arguments and evidences produced by various authors will briefly be produced to enable the scholars to further analyse the same to arrive at some logical conclusion and thus help the Jatland to settle the issue once for all times to come.

Readers are requested to extend their helping hand by supplicating the discussion with their terse comments on the contents of the posts not on the authors, please.
 
Last edited:
First we take up the Secondary Sources of eminent historians, who have used primary sources accessible and available to them at the time of their research. In this category, before proceeding further we acknowledge the contributors and request the scholars to quote them as original contributors on the issue.

First of all we acknowledge Dr V.A. Smith and reproduce below the dynasty chart of the Maurya Emperors as given by him for the benefit of research scholars.

[TABLE="align: left"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]SERIAL NO.[/TD]
[TD]NAME OF THE KING[/TD]
[TD]PROBABLE DATE OF ACCESSION[/TD]
[TD]REMARKS[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1.[/TD]
[TD]Chandragupta Maurya[/TD]
[TD]322 (? 325 B.C.)[/TD]
[TD]He met Alexander in 326/325 B.C. Date Approximately Correct[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2.[/TD]
[TD]Bindusara Amitraghata[/TD]
[TD]298[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3.[/TD]
[TD]Asoka -Vardhana[/TD]
[TD]272[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4.[/TD]
[TD]Dasartha[/TD]
[TD]232[/TD]
[TD](Kusala, Vayu Purana)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5.[/TD]
[TD]Sangata [/TD]
[TD]?224[/TD]
[TD](Bandhu Palita, Vayu Purana)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6.[/TD]
[TD]Salisuka[/TD]
[TD]?216[/TD]
[TD]( Indra Palita, Vayu Purana)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7.[/TD]
[TD]Somasarman[/TD]
[TD]?206[/TD]
[TD]( Dasa Varman, or Dev avarman, Vayu Purana)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8.[/TD]
[TD]Satadhanwan[/TD]
[TD]?199[/TD]
[TD]( Satadhanush, Vayu Purana)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9.[/TD]
[TD]Brihadratha*[/TD]
[TD]?191[/TD]
[TD](Brijadaswa, Vayu Purana)[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]



(V.A. Smith in The early History of India, fourth edition, oxford, 1962, pp.206-207)
*He was murdered by Pushyamitra Sunga in 185 B.C. and thus final destruction of Maurya Empire.
He says that the names of the successors of Asoka are taken from the Vishnu Purana, omitting Suyassas, for the reasons given in text. Other names are given in Jain books and the Buddhist Asokavadana......The Puranas agree in assigning 137 years to the Maurya Dynasty but the total of the lengths of reigns, according to the Vayu Purana is only 133. The difference of 4 years may be accounted for by the interval between the accession and the coronation of Asoka......




Thanks.
 
Last edited:
The thrust from the North-West

The thrust from the North-West :

* One of the most well-known scholars on Buddhism and a highly reputed historian, B. M. Barua, stated boldly, in his book, Indian Culture (vol. X, p. 34.) :

"To me Candragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila. His early education, military training and alliances were all in that part of India. He added the whole of the province of Gandhara and the surrounding tribal states (Punjab and N.W. frontier province) to the growing Magadha empire together with the territories ceded to him by Seleukus...."

* B. K. Barua and H. C. Seth (Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. 8, 1932.) place the Mauryas in the North-West.

* Please read :

"Mauryan coins have the symbol of the sun, a branch, a humped bull and mountain.

All these are pre-eminently Scythian MassaGetae icons who were sun worshippers with the high mount symbolizing earth and the irregular curving lines alongside it symbolizes water.

The tree branch is a symbol of productivity of the earth - agriculture and soldiering were the traditional "noble" occupation of Sakas.

The historians of Darius record that when he attempted to attack the Scythian MassaGetae (an old-Iranian culture of central Asia) along the Black sea in the 5th century BC, the Saka kings swore by the sun god and refused to surrender "earth and water".

The primordial Scythian Massagetaeans' religion was that of the original Iranic race, namely monotheist sun-worship, which they and their Maga priests carried wherever they migrated. It's a well-known fact that they even used to sacrifice horses in sun's honour.

D. B. Spooner who evacuated Pataliputra was struck by his findings and writes in his article "The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History" as follows: "For Chandragupta' s times, the evidences are more numerous and more detailed, and indicate a following of Persian customs all along the line - in public works, in ceremonial, in penal institutions, everything".

----

Sincerely !!
 
Moar said:
The thrust from the North-West :

* One of the most well-known scholars on Buddhism and a highly reputed historian, B. M. Barua, stated boldly, in his book, Indian Culture (vol. X, p. 34.) :

"To me Candragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila. His early education, military training and alliances were all in that part of India. He added the whole of the province of Gandhara and the surrounding tribal states (Punjab and N.W. frontier province) to the growing Magadha empire together with the territories ceded to him by Seleukus...."

* B. K. Barua and H. C. Seth (Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. 8, 1932.) place the Mauryas in the North-West.

* Please read :

"Mauryan coins have the symbol of the sun, a branch, a humped bull and mountain.

All these are pre-eminently Scythian MassaGetae icons who were sun worshippers with the high mount symbolizing earth and the irregular curving lines alongside it symbolizes water.

The tree branch is a symbol of productivity of the earth - agriculture and soldiering were the traditional "noble" occupation of Sakas.

The historians of Darius record that when he attempted to attack the Scythian MassaGetae (an old-Iranian culture of central Asia) along the Black sea in the 5th century BC, the Saka kings swore by the sun god and refused to surrender "earth and water".

The primordial Scythian Massagetaeans' religion was that of the original Iranic race, namely monotheist sun-worship, which they and their Maga priests carried wherever they migrated. It's a well-known fact that they even used to sacrifice horses in sun's honour.

D. B. Spooner who evacuated Pataliputra was struck by his findings and writes in his article "The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History" as follows: "For Chandragupta' s times, the evidences are more numerous and more detailed, and indicate a following of Persian customs all along the line - in public works, in ceremonial, in penal institutions, everything".

----

Sincerely !!
Click to expand...

Friend,

There is no unanimity on the issue that is why this thread has been started but you seem to be in a hurry to come to certain conclusion without going into all gamut of evidences collected after Spooner, Barua, H C Seth, H R Gupta etc. gave their valuable point of views. And also that, there is another school of thought on this issue also who have done their pains taking research. Both have to be revisited, reinterpreted under the light of the advancement of knowledge.

Therefore, we cannot arbitrarily reject or accept literary or archaeological evidence on the basis of finding a word or line not to the liking of ours. Rather have to take into consideration all points of view and then analyse it thoroughly.

Your summing up of the issue in another post on the issue is :....'' the Puranic literature is not a scholarship over the suject.''


Please guide if researchers should totally ignore the evidence on various facets of the Mauryan dynasty as contained in Puranas and/or use it to compare and contrast with Buddhist-Jaina traditions, archaeological data and arrive at some convincing conclusion.

Thanks and regards
 
I never said to overlook the Puranic literature (but suggested that the Puranic literature is not a scholarship over the suject), because it highlights some of the ways by which the fact that the Mauryas were Jats is bound to remain derailed !!

So, We can take a lesson from over there that how to derail the fact that the Mauryas were Jats !!

————

Please allow Me to re-text the one You are talking about here in this thread as well, Dear Sir !!

————

Regarding the Mauryas, Bhim Singh Dahiya [p. 147] states "Another indication of the foreign origin [ ie. Saka ] of these people is . . . The Vishnu Purana calls them [ Gupta rulers ] "Sudras". The Markandeya Purana brands the Mauryas as "Asura". The Yuga Purana called them `utterly irreligious, though posing as religious'. The Mudra Rakshasa calls these people as "Mlecchas" and Chandragupta himself is called 'Kulahina', an upstart of unknown family.

----

The Buddhist records definitely say that the Mauryas were a branch of the Śākyas; and that rightfully directly contradicts (and rightly outweighs) with what has been propagated about them in Puranic literature, as the Puranic literature wrongly refer to them as "shudras", "mlechas", and so on. The Mudra Rakshasa calls these people as "mlecchas" and Chandragupta himself is called "kulahina", an upstart of unknown family.

A nice proportion of scholars agree — Śākyas, Sakā (or Śāka), Sacae or Scythians are the same people.

And, as the Buddhist literature address the Mauryas as Śākyas, tracing their origin to Magadha will lead history students nowhere.

Hence, the Puranic literature is not a scholarship over the suject.

So, please update this, Dear Sir !!

----

And,

The Ceylonese chronicle, Divyāvadāna, states that Mauryas were mūrdkābhishiktakshatriyāḥ ('crown-headed' kshatriyas). Also, that is exactly the meaning of the word, Maur (in a central Asian language) !!

And, as the Ceylonese chronicles seems to have escaped any alleged tampering by the brahmins, and may be it is because of this reason what the Ceylonese chronicle, Divyāvadāna, tells us about the Mauryas rightfully directly contradicts (and rightly outweighs) with what has been propagated about them in Puranic literature, as the Puranic literature refer to them as "shudras", "mlechas", and so on.

Hence, the Puranic literature is not a scholarship over the suject.

So, please update this one as well, Dear Sir !!

————

Dear Sir, Please Note : I AM kind of refraining to comment in this thread because I have already made-up My mind over the subject; and at-least for now, I AM in not even considering to revise that !!

Sincerely !!
 
Last edited:
DrRajpalSingh said:
Extracts from : Collapse of the Brahminist Empire by Khshatrapa Gandasa


Chapter: III .........................Mauryas

The Mauryas were themselves perhaps of Scythic origin. D.B. Spooner who evacuated Pataliputra was struck by his findings and writes in his article "The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History" as follows:
................
.......................

It has also been suggested that this Scythic influence was occasioned by the immigration of Iranic Scyhtians fleeing the Greek conquest. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the main civilizing impetus behind the Mauryan empire was Scythic.

Source acknowledged: http://dalithsvshinduism.blogspot.in/2011/12/collapse-of-brahminist-empire-by.html

Comments of the learned Jatland members on the topic are invited.
Click to expand...

Friend,

The piece of writing is excellent piecing together of evidence started with D B Spooners sentence:The Mauryas were themselves perhaps of Scythic origin. And goes on add secondary data given by B S Dahiya and ends with :

"It has also been suggested ................ the main civilizing impetus behind the Mauryan empire was Scythic. "

The author of the article is honest and is not sure about his surmises that is why he is using the words 'perhaps' and 'it has also been suggested' without any hesitation. Hence need of further research.

Thanks and regards
 
Moar said:
I never said to overlook the Puranic literature (but suggested that the Puranic literature is not a scholarship over the suject), ..................
Dear Sir, Please Note : I AM kind of refraining to comment in this thread because I have already made-up My mind over the subject; and at-least for now, I AM in not even considering to revise that !!
Click to expand...

Friend,

I have taken note of your suggestions and view with due respect and hope to hear more on the issue as and when convenient to you.

Thanks and regards.
 
Moar said:
Dear Sir, I will read < JatHistory : Message : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/444 and the following — Replies, Comments and Suggestions > in the next few days, and I advice You that to You too !!
Click to expand...


For your kind information I am already on line as a member of the Jat History groups on yahoo.com and studied with keen interest all the material/sources/message on Mauryas available there.

Nonetheless, Moar Sahib you deserve thanks and regards for showing concern.
 
Last edited:
Some authors/scholars do not like to consult/use Puranas, due to reasons best known to them to do so, as a source of information for writing history of Maurya dynasty founded by Chandraguptra. This puts one in a very embarrassing position as no other source so candidly gives dynastic chronological order and span of the reign of the 9 rulers. Vishnu Purana and Vayu Purana are gems of information on the issue. However, a word of caution! While using Purana as source due attention may be kept to make full use of other sources like Inscriptions, Coins, Jaina and Buddhist Traditions and other secondary sources to separate facts from fiction.
 
Rajpalji you are right that Vishnu Purana and Vayu Purana are gems of information on the issue.

The Vishnu Purana is often considered to be the most important of all the eighteen Puranas and is given the name Puranaratna (gem of Puranas).Presented as a dialogue between Parashara with his disciple Maitreya. It is divided into six parts. The major topics discussed include creation myths, stories of battles fought between Asuras and Devas, the avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu and genealogy and stories of legendary kings.

The fourth section gives a detailed account of all the famous Kings from the solar and lunar dynasties of ancient India, and also lists the names of kings.

H. H. Wilson considers it one of the oldest of the Puranas, and dates it to the first century BCE ( Wilson (2006), p. xii.)

We can not plainly reject this important source of information. Only thing is that we have to verify from other sources.
 
lrburdak said:
Rajpalji you are right that Vishnu Purana and Vayu Purana are gems of information on the issue.

The Vishnu Purana is often considered to be the most important of all the eighteen Puranas and is given the name Puranaratna (gem of Puranas).Presented as a dialogue between Parashara with his disciple Maitreya. It is divided into six parts. The major topics discussed include creation myths, stories of battles fought between Asuras and Devas, the avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu and genealogy and stories of legendary kings.

The fourth section gives a detailed account of all the famous Kings from the solar and lunar dynasties of ancient India, and also lists the names of kings.

H. H. Wilson considers it one of the oldest of the Puranas, and dates it to the first century BCE ( Wilson (2006), p. xii.)

We can not plainly reject this important source of information. Only thing is that we have to verify from other sources.
Click to expand...


Dubbing something as a myth does not make it so.

Wilson et al could just as well have taken the Puranas to be genuine History.

Secondly how does Wilson date the Purana to 1BCE?

The accounts contained in are much older,dating back to 3100 BCE and beyond.

Ravi Chaudhary
 
ravichaudhary said:
Dubbing something as a myth does not make it so.

Wilson et al could just as well have taken the Puranas to be genuine History.

Secondly how does Wilson date the Purana to 1BCE?

The accounts contained in are much older,dating back to 3100 BCE and beyond.

Ravi Chaudhary
Click to expand...

Chaudhary Sahib,

Thanks for raising much sought after and valid warning for the scholars of ancient history not to fall prey to 'dubbing' something which is not to one's liking as a 'myth' or vice versa. They must try to validate their findings using other tools of research before rejecting/accepting any source of information.

For those, who have no time or access to voluminous records of author on the Puranas, their attention is drawn to small treatise brought out a few years ago from his Introduction to the translation of Purana. .

H H Wilson, Puranas : An account of their Contents and Nature, [extract from his first published ed. June 1897, Calcutta] has been reprinted by Arun Publications, Chandigarh. Chapters Theology and Antiquity; The Number of Puranas; Synopsis of the Puranas; Upapuranas; and An account of Vishnupurana.

Those who are interested to know what H H Wilson says about the importance of Puranas as source of Indian History must surely get first hand information by going through this 70 page essay and then arrive at their understanding of the issues raised and then come out with their own conclusions by posting them here.

On the contents or chronology, he has enumerated his own reasons and has not failed to criticize points of views of Sir William Jones, Paslinoda S. Bartolomeo, Wilford, Polier, Maurice, Taber, and Crenzer et all on various counts. [see for details, pp. 69- 70] .

Now it is for us to either accept or repudiate his views on the issue by putting forward all the available and accessible evidences based on original sources. This task has to be undertaken collectively by scholars interested in devoting their full efforts in the quest of truth.

Thanks and regards
 
Last edited:
Date of composition of Vishnu Purana


The composition dates of Vishnu Purana mentioned by the various scholars include:


H. H. Wilson: first century BCE; one of the oldest of the Puranas [Wilson (2006), p. xii.]

Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri: 320-255 CE[M.M.Ninan (2008). The Development Of Hinduism. Madathil Mammen Ninan. ISBN 978-1-4382-2820-4]

Rajendra Chandra Hazra: 275-325 CE[M.M.Ninan (2008). The Development Of Hinduism. Madathil Mammen Ninan. ISBN 978-1-4382-2820-4]

Moriz Winternitz: before 400 CE[M.M.Ninan (2008). The Development Of Hinduism. Madathil Mammen Ninan. ISBN 978-1-4382-2820-4]

Gavin Flood: fourth century CE[Flood (1996), p. 111.]

Vishnu Purana contains a genealogy of the rulers of the Gupta Empire, and therefore its final version could not have been written before 320 CE.[M.M.Ninan (2008). The Development Of Hinduism. Madathil Mammen Ninan. ISBN 978-1-4382-2820-4.]
 
I am not sure how you can reach that conclusion based on books that you cited. That Ninan person has written a book called 'Hinduism', with its synopsis on net as follows:

"This book presents the evidences to show that the Modern Hinduism is actually the lost Thomas Chrisitian Churches of Inner India which were high jacked by the Gnostics and the Theosophists". I cannot believe that you have cited 3 quotes from him and people here consider you one of the respected and knowledgeable member.

Seems like not too long ago, there was agreement among orientalists and their followers on this site that Mahabharat was written in 4th century CE as well since they had mentioned Huns and the likes. We now know that is not true, as late additions were made to some texts. Is it possible to sift through some of this evidence here as well. Afterall we know that in MbH mention of Huns is a late addition?

lrburdak said:
Date of composition of Vishnu Purana


The composition dates of Vishnu Purana mentioned by the various scholars include:


H. H. Wilson: first century BCE; one of the oldest of the Puranas [Wilson (2006), p. xii.]

Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri: 320-255 CE[M.M.Ninan (2008). The Development Of Hinduism. Madathil Mammen Ninan. ISBN 978-1-4382-2820-4]

Rajendra Chandra Hazra: 275-325 CE[M.M.Ninan (2008). The Development Of Hinduism. Madathil Mammen Ninan. ISBN 978-1-4382-2820-4]

Moriz Winternitz: before 400 CE[M.M.Ninan (2008). The Development Of Hinduism. Madathil Mammen Ninan. ISBN 978-1-4382-2820-4]

Gavin Flood: fourth century CE[Flood (1996), p. 111.]

Vishnu Purana contains a genealogy of the rulers of the Gupta Empire, and therefore its final version could not have been written before 320 CE.[M.M.Ninan (2008). The Development Of Hinduism. Madathil Mammen Ninan. ISBN 978-1-4382-2820-4.]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top